Tonight President Biden is going to address the nation and ask for $100 billion in spending on top of our current $7 trillion yearly spending.
____________________________________________
No worries. Our strong conservative leaders in DC, led by a strong conservative Speaker of the House will certainly deny Biden’s war chest requests.
/spit
American interest — One that: (1) protects the life, liberty and property of Americans; (2) supports the constitutional protection of Americans; and (3) promotes the protection of like-minded people outside the U.S. who desire to be Americans (i.e., are looking to seek admission to the U.S. as a new state).
Hard definition indeed.
Sending billions to Ukraine, not in the working people’s best interests.
Sending aid to Israel, yes as a hedge against the middle east and Iran, but is it best for American’s working class?
I will say what is in the best interest of America is, limited immigration, energy, food and manufacturing independence. Those things are in the best thing for the American people.
Not sure that is what you wanted, but there it is.
American interest is the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (which, for me, is Property). Further, the rule of law as expressed in our Constitution must be enforced.
I support the concept of Autarky meaning economic independence and self-sufficiency for the United States. Tariffs should be used so that our essential needs can be met locally as much as possible. Foreign trade is all well and good, but actual dependence on foreign goods is bad.
And I no longer support a standing army. We have one, and we use it too much. Keep the nukes, send the soldiers home.
That can be a long argument. But I guess the first place is in the preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Where does Ukraine fit in? Or Israel for that matter?
And its not based on what Russia or Hamas *might* do. And general welfare does not refer to what benefits DC special interests or politicians.
Maybe we can ask the people of East Palestine or Lahaina what they think. Or citizens in New York city who have a building of full of illegalsnext door.
I also think assisting both Israel and Ukraine are in our interests. But there isn't any reason that spending on national security can't be given higher priority than other spending and other spending cut.
For example:
" SNAP spending soared from $91.8 billion in fiscal 2020 to $127.6 billion in fiscal 2021, and fell back only slightly last year."
Given the number of human hippos I see staggering around my city, a significant SNAP cut would not only help the deficit but also public health.
Similarly, Why are we spending money on aid to Gaza and giving aid to Israel when the money spent on Gaza will just be seized by Hamas? Are we funding both sides? How much in frozen Iranian assets are we still holding? Why isn't that being used to fund Israel and frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine?
Then if you believe what you say, you need to be in support of our aid to Israel 100% but just want to see a plan for taking the cost of that support out of some places the current spending is dedicated to. That I would agree with.
However, minus getting such a thing from Biden, and if I were sitting in Congress, I am not sure I could sacrifice aid to Israel for something I have no hope of getting from Biden.
My approval of aid to Israel is not dependent on who is President. Would you be making your same argument if the situation was the same (and the budget was the same) and Trump was President?
To me the budget battle must be waged on its own, for that is the real financial battle, more than this or that program or this or that expenditure - though many programs and many expenditures do need to be dropped altogether. Those are the battles Congress needs to be engaged in, far far far more than holding up immediate aid to an ally under attack in an Iranian proxy war. Why? Because those things are systemic and immediate aid to an ally is not.
A former CEO boss use say to different people on the staff from time to time - when he thought their view of the situation was wrong - “Your looking at the hole not the donut”.
The donut is the whys and wherefores of the $7 trillion to start with, not aid to Israel.
Read The Declaration
Give me liberty or give me death.
You're welcome! ;-)
We will keep spending until we are no more.
That much is blatantly obvious by now.
Heck, I’m willing to discuss if anything at all outside of our boundaries is in our interest. Not completely sure where I would end up, but I am starting to think that if you are a citizen, you should be 100% protected within our country, but if you choose to go to some hellhole, we should not spend on penny to rescue you. We can be 100% energy independent. Let the idiots in the mid-east destroy themselves. And no need to pay to have our military all over the world.
Maybe take it in steps. Every year for the next ten years any money going internationally is cut 10% (based on current spending). In ten years you are on your own. Lock ourselves up tight and let the rest of the world police themselves for once.
At least I would entertain that discussion.